Polish Armoured Vehicles

[Gun Ready]

2 hours ago, Zadlo said:

 

Leopard 2 is known in Poland, Leclerc not.

The only known things about the tank:

 

- G2G between Polish and German government (the talks have been started roughly at the beginning of this year but it is still not signed)

- production in Poland (Bumar-Labedy) starting between 2027 and 2030 (according to PGZ)

- between 400 and 800 tanks only for Polish Armed Forces

- 130 mm Rheinmetall's smoothbore gun as main armament - probably with production in Poland

- high degree of "polonization", including all the rights to the tank (even in this situation Rheinmetall wants to be claimed as a Polish company)

- the tank will be offered by Rheinmetall in Germany as a Leopard 2 replacement and the counteroffer to KNDS tank.

Thaks for these very interesting answers. Especially the 130 mm development will be traced by me (as Gun Ready) very attentively! Will see under what cicumstances a production of 400 to 800 tanks will be financed by Polish government.

 

2 hours ago, Zadlo said:

 

Leopard 2 is known in Poland, Leclerc not.

The only known things about the tank:

 

- G2G between Polish and German government (the talks have been started roughly at the beginning of this year but it is still not signed)

- production in Poland (Bumar-Labedy) starting between 2027 and 2030 (according to PGZ)

- between 400 and 800 tanks only for Polish Armed Forces

- 130 mm Rheinmetall's smoothbore gun as main armament - probably with production in Poland

- high degree of "polonization", including all the rights to the tank (even in this situation Rheinmetall wants to be claimed as a Polish company)

- the tank will be offered by Rheinmetall in Germany as a Leopard 2 replacement and the counteroffer to KNDS tank.

 

[Gun Ready]

3 minutes ago, Gun Ready said:

Thaks for these very interesting answers. Especially the 130 mm development will be traced by me (as Gun Ready) very attentively! Will see under what cicumstances a production of 400 to 800 tanks will be financed by Polish government.

 

 

I daubt that Rheinmetall can do a successful counteroffer to a KNDS tank as they are no tank developers as KMW and Nexter

[Gun Ready]

Sorry, as a Newbie I got a little be confused with replying correctly.....

[Zadlo]

On 10/2/2018 at 6:27 PM, Gun Ready said:

I daubt that Rheinmetall can do a successful counteroffer to a KNDS tank as they are no tank developers as KMW and Nexter

 

So who has projected Lynx KF41?  Aliens? 

[Gun Ready]

The Lynx KF41 is an AIFV and not a MBT! Up to now Rheinmetall did only different Leopard 2 modifications, not more. The only customers for the moment are Indonesia and Poland. They are doing great guns and fine ammo and they should stay with these things.

[TokyoMorose]

24 minutes ago, Gun Ready said:

The Lynx KF41 is an AIFV and not a MBT! Up to now Rheinmetall did only different Leopard 2 modifications, not more. The only customers for the moment are Indonesia and Poland. They are doing great guns and fine ammo and they should stay with these things.

 

Gun, at some point, every tank manufacturer was not a tank manufacturer. There's always a first design for a company, and there have been several times when these first designs were good. EE-T1 Osorio comes to mind, for its goal (cheap reasonably modern tank for third world nations on a 40t weight limit) it was a fantastic design from a firm with no previous tank work, in a country with no tank industry.

[Lord_James]

2 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

Gun, at some point, every tank manufacturer was not a tank manufacturer. There's always a first design for a company, and there have been several times when these first designs were good. EE-T1 Osorio comes to mind, for its goal (cheap reasonably modern tank for third world nations on a 40t weight limit) it was a fantastic design from a firm with no previous tank work, in a country with no tank industry.

 

I second the Osorio, was a surprisingly well made tank despite no prior experience making MBTs from Engesa; just wheeled death traps. I would personally have loved to see what would have happened if someone (Saudi Arabia probably, maybe Thailand or Indonesia too) did buy the Osorio and Engesa didn't go bankrupt. 

[That’s Suspicious]

Yeah the Osorio was a extremely impressive vehicle from a company like them. It’s really sad that certain vehicles like that and the AMX-40 for example never take off.

[SH_MM]

13 hours ago, Gun Ready said:

The Lynx KF41 is an AIFV and not a MBT! Up to now Rheinmetall did only different Leopard 2 modifications, not more. The only customers for the moment are Indonesia and Poland. They are doing great guns and fine ammo and they should stay with these things.

 

Your whole argument is silly. Rheinmetall purchased MaK's military division in 1990; MaK built 45% of all Leopard 2 tanks for the German army and a similar fraction of Leopard 1 tanks. Rheinmetall also purchased Thyssen-Henschel and KUKA's military division; Thyssen-Henschel has been responsible for developing and producing vehicles like the Marder IFV, the TAM tank and the TH 495 IFV. KUKA has delievered turrets for various AFVs . Rheinmetall has all the capabilities as a system integrator that are required for making MBTs; there isn't much difference between putting a modern AFV (like the Boxer or Puma) or a modern MBT together. Btw. the upgrade of various German Leopard 2 MBTs, maintenance and production of heavy support vehicles (like for example the Kodiak) are also a tasks that Rheinmetall has been responsible for.

 

No company in the world is capable of developing a new tank completely by itself - designing, developing and manufacturing a main battle tank is a task that requires multiple companies to cooperate; e.g. no tank manufacturer in the world has the knowledge and capacities to produce modern engines and transmission. "Tank manufacturers" take the role of system integrators, i.e. their task is to make sure that all components fit together and to put everything together. That's what KMW, Rheinmetall, UralVagonZavod, General Dynamics, MANTAK, etc. all do. Some system integrators - like Rheinmetall - produce some of the parts by themselves, while others - like for example KMW and General Dynamics - design and use only a very limited number of self-made components, they rely heavier on cooperation with other vendors.

 

_____
As far as the rumors of Poland manufacturing a Rheinmetall-designed MBT are concerned, I wouldn't put that much faith into them. While there have been talks between Rheinmetall and Polish officials, there are tons of reason why one should be careful at first. Poland's budget doesn't really allow funding and purchasing a new tank without exterior cooperation (they could only afford a scaled-back, downgraded Leopard 2 upgrade...). Rheinmetall is also interested in the MGCS, which would be a far more lucrative deal and has good chances to win a contract. While Poland has requested to join the MGCS, these requests have currently been denied (but they may allow Poland to join at a later stage). Given the limited ressources of the company (there aren't many people with in-depth knowledge in tank and AFV design), there might be a need to make a choice between the MGCS and the Polish program, unless Poland joins the MGCS project. Furthermore the claimed schedule is extremely unrealistic. The MGCS project has been started in 2012, but series production is expected to start after 2030 (some estimates say 2035 might be more realistic); a tank design for Poland would start several years after 2012 - it is extremely unrealistic to get a new tank into production by 2027.

Furthermore the Polish industry lacks the capabilties to make a true next-gen tank, even if the design is provided by Germany - just look at the Leopard 2PL, which has been delayed by 1-2 years because Bumar Łabędy and other Polish companies lacked the tools and know-how to modify the Leopard 2. Add to this any next-gen manufacturing process (or current gen ones) and it seems pretty much impossible for Poland to manufacture a new MBT by 2030.

 

 

[Zadlo]

On 10/6/2018 at 12:33 PM, SH_MM said:

Rheinmetall is also interested in the MGCS, which would be a far more lucrative deal and has good chances to win a contract. While Poland has requested to join the MGCS, these requests have currently been denied (but they may allow Poland to join at a later stage). Given the limited ressources of the company (there aren't many people with in-depth knowledge in tank and AFV design), there might be a need to make a choice between the MGCS and the Polish program, unless Poland joins the MGCS project.

 

 

 

The Polish program and MGCS are the one and the same. Rheinmetall offers the cooperation with Polish industry within MGCS program.

[Zadlo]

On 10/6/2018 at 12:33 PM, SH_MM said:

Furthermore the Polish industry lacks the capabilties to make a true next-gen tank, even if the design is provided by Germany - just look at the Leopard 2PL, which has been delayed by 1-2 years because Bumar Łabędy and other Polish companies lacked the tools and know-how to modify the Leopard 2. Add to this any next-gen manufacturing process (or current gen ones) and it seems pretty much impossible for Poland to manufacture a new MBT by 2030.

 

 

 

Leopard 2PL is delayed because some Polish companies weren't ready to produce so many components to Leopard. But now the delay is probably also the Rheinmetall's fault. But on the other hand Leopard 2PL and Polish modernization of Leopard 2A5 have the purpose to test Polish industry and to be honest this is the first part of NCP (New Main Battle Tank) purchase by Polish Army.

[Gun Ready]

On 10/6/2018 at 12:33 PM, SH_MM said:

 

Your whole argument is silly. Rheinmetall purchased MaK's military division in 1990; MaK built 45% of all Leopard 2 tanks for the German army and a similar fraction of Leopard 1 tanks. Rheinmetall also purchased Thyssen-Henschel and KUKA's military division; Thyssen-Henschel has been responsible for developing and producing vehicles like the Marder IFV, the TAM tank and the TH 495 IFV. KUKA has delievered turrets for various AFVs . Rheinmetall has all the capabilities as a system integrator that are required for making MBTs; there isn't much difference between putting a modern AFV (like the Boxer or Puma) or a modern MBT together. Btw. the upgrade of various German Leopard 2 MBTs, maintenance and production of heavy support vehicles (like for example the Kodiak) are also a tasks that Rheinmetall has been responsible for.

 

No company in the world is capable of developing a new tank completely by itself - designing, developing and manufacturing a main battle tank is a task that requires multiple companies to cooperate; e.g. no tank manufacturer in the world has the knowledge and capacities to produce modern engines and transmission. "Tank manufacturers" take the role of system integrators, i.e. their task is to make sure that all components fit together and to put everything together. That's what KMW, Rheinmetall, UralVagonZavod, General Dynamics, MANTAK, etc. all do. Some system integrators - like Rheinmetall - produce some of the parts by themselves, while others - like for example KMW and General Dynamics - design and use only a very limited number of self-made components, they rely heavier on cooperation with other vendors.

 

_____
As far as the rumors of Poland manufacturing a Rheinmetall-designed MBT are concerned, I wouldn't put that much faith into them. While there have been talks between Rheinmetall and Polish officials, there are tons of reason why one should be careful at first. Poland's budget doesn't really allow funding and purchasing a new tank without exterior cooperation (they could only afford a scaled-back, downgraded Leopard 2 upgrade...). Rheinmetall is also interested in the MGCS, which would be a far more lucrative deal and has good chances to win a contract. While Poland has requested to join the MGCS, these requests have currently been denied (but they may allow Poland to join at a later stage). Given the limited ressources of the company (there aren't many people with in-depth knowledge in tank and AFV design), there might be a need to make a choice between the MGCS and the Polish program, unless Poland joins the MGCS project. Furthermore the claimed schedule is extremely unrealistic. The MGCS project has been started in 2012, but series production is expected to start after 2030 (some estimates say 2035 might be more realistic); a tank design for Poland would start several years after 2012 - it is extremely unrealistic to get a new tank into production by 2027.

Furthermore the Polish industry lacks the capabilties to make a true next-gen tank, even if the design is provided by Germany - just look at the Leopard 2PL, which has been delayed by 1-2 years because Bumar Łabędy and other Polish companies lacked the tools and know-how to modify the Leopard 2. Add to this any next-gen manufacturing process (or current gen ones) and it seems pretty much impossible for Poland to manufacture a new MBT by 2030.

 

 

Thank you for your detailed explanations, very helpful. I like to address a few questions you may be able to answer: First, what German Leopard upgrades did Rheinmetall? Second, why do you think Rheinmetall has good changes to win the MGCS contract. According to my info they have to share a contract with KMW anyhow as German authorities want to have a share between the two both as long as possible like with Boxer and Puma.

[SH_MM]

On 10/7/2018 at 1:39 PM, Zadlo said:

The Polish program and MGCS are the one and the same. Rheinmetall offers the cooperation with Polish industry within MGCS program.

 

This is not up to Rheinmetall to decide, but the French and German governments.

 

On 10/7/2018 at 1:45 PM, Zadlo said:

Leopard 2PL is delayed because some Polish companies weren't ready to produce so many components to Leopard. But now the delay is probably also the Rheinmetall's fault. But on the other hand Leopard 2PL and Polish modernization of Leopard 2A5 have the purpose to test Polish industry and to be honest this is the first part of NCP (New Main Battle Tank) purchase by Polish Army.

 

The problem is that the Leopard 2PL is not representative of how a next-generation MBT will look like. During the Leopard 2PL program, the Polish industry had problems at using the same manufacturing techniques and processes that have been mastered by other countries decades ago. A next-gen tank will make use of future manufacturing techniques, which aren't required for the Leopard 2PL. The Puma (being developed in such a way, that new technologies are developed for next-gen tanks aswell) might be an indicative for what can be required for the MGCS.

 

On 10/8/2018 at 9:53 AM, Gun Ready said:

First, what German Leopard upgrades did Rheinmetall?

 

They upgraded numerous Leopard 2A4 tanks to the Leopard 2A5/2A6 configuration, just like KMW.

 

On 10/8/2018 at 9:53 AM, Gun Ready said:

Second, why do you think Rheinmetall has good changes to win the MGCS contract.

 

Back in the 1970s, when the Leopard 2 was developed, Krauss-Maffei was the largest company capable of manufacturing tanks, so they won the contract (became primary contractor), while MaK (having a smaller military division than Krauss-Maffei) ended up secondary contractor. In the past decades, Krauss-Maffei has rarely expanded - they merged with Wegmann to become KMW, but the overall number of employees and faciltiies has increased only by a rather small amount. That is also related to ownership, as KMW is a family-owned business, which doesn't really try to maximize profits/market share under all circumstances. Rheinmetall however expanded drastically - in the 1970s, the company didn't even manufacture its own military vehicles. But it has expanded much more than KMW and purchased essentially all other armored vehicle manufacturers aside of KMW and FFG and numerous component providers. Rheinmetall is including Thyssen-Henschel, MaK, KuKa, Oerlikon, Atlas Elektronik, MAN's military divison, etc.

 

Nowadays Rheinmetall is nearly 10 times bigger than KMW (by number of employees) and is doing more of the heavy work for Boxer and Puma - most Boxers are made by Rheinmetall, while they also make the Puma's hull. KMW does provide components (i.e. the decoupled running gear) and the turret for the Puma. The larger company also has a wider product range, being able to offer armor systems, active protection systems, armament, fire control systems, optics, electronics, etc.

 

On 10/8/2018 at 9:53 AM, Gun Ready said:

According to my info they have to share a contract with KMW anyhow as German authorities want to have a share between the two both as long as possible like with Boxer and Puma

 

There always will be a primary contractor like Krauss-Maffei was/is for the Leopard 2. The Puma and Boxer are different, because these are cooperations started by the industry: KMW and Rheinmetall decided to develop these vehicles together and to bid together with a joint-venture being responsible to negotiate with the German government and to manage the project. It was the decision of the industry, not the one of the German government. For the MGCS - at least based on rumors and statements from representatives of the companies - both Rheinmetall and KMW will make separate bids, competing against each other.

 

[Zadlo]

On 10/10/2018 at 1:10 PM, SH_MM said:

This is not up to Rheinmetall to decide, but the French and German governments.

 

Better check your sources.

 

'cause according to other sources from both of the sides (RLS and Polish MoD) Rheinmetall offers development of their tank as a part of MGCS at least since late 2016. Here, in Poland, we thought to this June that MGCS is Rheinmetall's only program. So Rheinmetall is lying or you don't even know what MGCS is.

 

More, a few months ago some fan-arts have been shown. But they are very, very, very accurate to the proposed Rheinmetall's tank. Even with the tank's compartment but with some small exceptions (like battery compartment size and location).

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

[Zadlo]

On 10/10/2018 at 1:10 PM, SH_MM said:

The problem is that the Leopard 2PL is not representative of how a next-generation MBT will look like. During the Leopard 2PL program, the Polish industry had problems at using the same manufacturing techniques and processes that have been mastered by other countries decades ago. A next-gen tank will make use of future manufacturing techniques, which aren't required for the Leopard 2PL. The Puma (being developed in such a way, that new technologies are developed for next-gen tanks aswell) might be an indicative for what can be required for the MGCS.

 

You think that thermal cameras or electric drives in the future tank will be more modern than the current ones?

The main problem will be with the more complicated components. But the industry is a system of interconnected vessels so the experience from the other programs (IFV, artillery) can sometimes be useful.

[Ramlaen]

2 hours ago, Zadlo said:

 

Better check your sources.

 

'cause according to other sources from both of the sides (RLS and Polish MoD) Rheinmetall offers development of their tank as a part of MGCS at least since late 2016. Here, in Poland, we thought to this June that MGCS is Rheinmetall's only program. So Rheinmetall is lying or you don't even know what MGCS is.

 

More, a few months ago some fan-arts have been shown. But they are very, very, very accurate to the proposed Rheinmetall's tank. Even with the tank's compartment but with some small exceptions (like battery compartment size and location).

 

  Hide contents

 

 

 

 

Can you link some of those sources for my reading pleasure?

[SH_MM]

1 hour ago, Zadlo said:

Better check your sources.

 

'cause according to other sources from both of the sides (RLS and Polish MoD) Rheinmetall offers development of their tank as a part of MGCS at least since late 2016. Here, in Poland, we thought to this June that MGCS is Rheinmetall's only program. So Rheinmetall is lying or you don't even know what MGCS is. 

  

More, a few months ago some fan-arts have been shown. But they are very, very, very accurate to the proposed Rheinmetall's tank. Even with the tank's compartment but with some small exceptions (like battery compartment size and location). 

 

You seem to have a very incorrect idea about the Main Ground Combat System. it is not a design by Rheinmetall (or KMW), but a state-run or state-managed program, just like the Leopard 2 for example wasn't a design from one company, but a project managed by the German state, where components were sub-contracted and a main contractor (i.e. Krauss-Maffei) was chosen after the design was finished. The MGCS will be similar.

 

For this at first a concept has to be developed and chosen. This work consists of multiple steps: at first several companies focused on analysis and consultation such as Industrieanlagen Betriebsgesellschaft mbH (IABG) of Germany and the Franco-German institute in Saint-Louis (ISL) were tasked with wrok for a pre-design analysis and conception phase - i.e. the IABG was tasked to create studies about potential use scenarios and theoretical threats encountered in these. The German and French militaries then accessed these scenarios and based on these come up with a weighing system and requirements. The specified tank threat reference for the MGCS is the Russian T-14 Armata main battle tank.

 

If Rheinmetall presented anything to Poland, then this is not directly related to the MGCS - simply because it has not been defined how the MGCS will look. At the time of Eurosatory 2018 it was still not decided which armament concept out of four being considered is to be chosen; aside of different guns (130 mm & 140 mm smoothbore guns, ETC technology), other concepts suggest that a relatively large autocannon (bigger than the usualy 30 x 173 mm) with missiles (either top-attack or hypervelocity missiles) might be adequate armament. At this point of time no decision had/has been made regarding combat weight (at some point a 35 tonnes tank was considered to be more air-deployable, but also heavier tanks with ~60-70 tonnes of weight) or crew configuration (two men, three men or four men crew per MGCS tank?).

 

 

Above is the schedule shared between MGCS and CIFS. As you can see the concept studies last until mid 2018, but it seems that it had been extended by a few weeks given the late signature of a Franco-German agreement. Technology demonstrators will be made for the different concepts, as no final decisions for one specific concept has been made. At the same time studies regarding the available technologies and production capacities are made. When a concept has been chosen and key technologies have been demostrated, a first set of system demonstrators will be made. A first proper prototype follows later, it is expected by 2025, but KMW/Nexter claimed that they could finish one by 2023, if nice enough funding is approved for this.

 

 

Rheinmetall has only shown concepts of its own MBT suggestions, which they want to use as basis to propose for the MGCS. Rheinmetall - and KMW & Nexter - are probably keeping their R&D department busy with creating such next-gen tanks, given the potential contract value. That Rheinmetall did not offer Poland to join the MGCS, is very simple to see in this topic. I posted an interview of Defence24.pl with Otmar Schultheis, who is currently COO of the recently funded subsidairy Rheinmetall Polska. Just listen and see him confirm that they did suggest a different tank for Poland only:

 

The fan-art is completely bullshit. Most of the MGCS are either turretless or have an unmanned turret, as achieving the desired protection levels is not possible with a manned turret, unless the a very high weight limit is chosen.

 

1 hour ago, Zadlo said:

You think that thermal cameras or electric drives in the future tank will be more modern than the current ones? 

The main problem will be with the more complicated components. But the industry is a system of interconnected vessels so the experience from the other programs (IFV, artillery) can sometimes be useful. 

 

First of all: yes. The MGCS will feature next generation thermal sights and sensors. The electric drives for turret and hull of the Leopard 2PL are made by Jenoptik in Germany.

 

Aside of that, PCO S.A. wasn't the only Polish company having issues. Before they even started, Bumar Łabędy S.A.had to upgrade its facility, as they lacked the machinery to handle the upgrade, delaying the whole program by multiple weeks.This can happen again, for example if the MGCS design uses a turret construction similar to the Puma's.

[Zadlo]

3 hours ago, Ramlaen said:

Can you link some of those sources for my reading pleasure?

 

Unfortunately, no. From Rheinmetall and OBRUM the most we've got to know during MSPO 2017. In this year's MSPO we didn't have a chance to receive more fresh informations about the tank. In case of MoD we've talked with the Arms Department's deputy director in June.

 

And by now we know that the Rheinmetall's and PGZ (not only OBRUM or Bumar-Labedy) offer is waiting for consideration by MoD since the beginning of this year. But our politicians are well known of being afraid to decide anything because they have to take a responbility for that in the future. And the brilliant example is that PT-91s are waiting for the better gun stabilizer for 26 years as Bumar (producer of PT-91) demands that. And probably they'll never receive.

[Zadlo]

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

If Rheinmetall presented anything to Poland, then this is not directly related to the MGCS - simply because it has not been defined how the MGCS will look. At the time of Eurosatory 2018 it was still not decided which armament concept out of four being considered is to be chosen; aside of different guns (130 mm & 140 mm smoothbore guns, ETC technology), other concepts suggest that a relatively large autocannon (bigger than the usualy 30 x 173 mm) with missiles (either top-attack or hypervelocity missiles) might be adequate armament. At this point of time no decision had/has been made regarding combat weight (at some point a 35 tonnes tank was considered to be more air-deployable, but also heavier tanks with ~60-70 tonnes of weight) or crew configuration (two men, three men or four men crew per MGCS tank?).

 

 

Above is the schedule shared between MGCS and CIFS. As you can see the concept studies last until mid 2018, but it seems that it had been extended by a few weeks given the late signature of a Franco-German agreement. Technology demonstrators will be made for the different concepts, as no final decisions for one specific concept has been made. At the same time studies regarding the available technologies and production capacities are made. When a concept has been chosen and key technologies have been demostrated, a first set of system demonstrators will be made. A first proper prototype follows later, it is expected by 2025, but KMW/Nexter claimed that they could finish one by 2023, if nice enough funding is approved for this.

 

The "message" from Rheinmetall is unfortunately unclear and sophisticated. We wanted to correct anything we know about the offer but we haven't had a chance from them. And as I know it can be two options of the same "message":

1. Rheinmetall wants to create one tank in one version (and the information is fresher than the interview from 2017)

2. Rheinmetall wants to create two versions of one tank - one for Poland with major part of PGZ involvement in the production and the second one for Germany

 

IMHO option 2 is more possible.

 

Also, to compare - the "Wilk" (Wolf) program currently suggests (additionally to what I've written 11 days ago) that:

- the program (probably without R&D) would cost 2 billion euros between 2023 and 2032

- 232 tanks (4 battalions) would be produced to 2032 in Bumar-Labedy

- vehicles will have decent weight (50+ tonnes, probably between 55 and 63 tonnes), armament (at least Rh 120) and armor (1000 - 1300 mm RHAe vs KE in front)

[Zadlo]

1 hour ago, SH_MM said:

The fan-art is completely bullshit. Most of the MGCS are either turretless or have an unmanned turret, as achieving the desired protection levels is not possible with a manned turret, unless the a very high weight limit is chosen.

 

In case of Wilk there are IIRC three options from Rheinmetall-OBRUM duo - the one coming from Rheinmetall, which name I'm not allowed to write and other two which are only thicker versions of (dead) Gepard.

 

Additionally, Hyundai Rotem with HCP offers polonized version of K2 Black Panther and KMW with WZM offers the reboot of Leopard 2 production with a version which I would call "Leopard 2A7 Polnische Verbessert".

[Zadlo]

2 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The electric drives for turret and hull of the Leopard 2PL are made by Jenoptik in Germany.

 

Aside of that, PCO S.A. wasn't the only Polish company having issues. Before they even started, Bumar Łabędy S.A.had to upgrade its facility, as they lacked the machinery to handle the upgrade, delaying the whole program by multiple weeks.This can happen again, for example if the MGCS design uses a turret construction similar to the Puma's.

 

Not at all. Jenoptik will be only the "technology donor" for ZMT which will produce the electric drives for Leopard 2PL and probably the Polish modernization of Leopard 2A5.

 

The issue with Bumar-Labedy is a bit complicated. ZMBL has argued with WZM about the engines overhaul and this has caused the delay. Additionally they have problems with upgrade of their facility because they will receive money only when they will end the modernization of Leopard 2... Welcome to Polish bureaucratic hell  

 

And what is special with LANCE turret construction in comparison to other unmanned and optionally manned turrets?

[123]

1

[SH_MM]

15 hours ago, Zadlo said:

Not at all. Jenoptik will be only the "technology donor" for ZMT which will produce the electric drives for Leopard 2PL and probably the Polish modernization of Leopard 2A5. 

 

You are right, I made a mistake. Jenoptik makes all APUs aswell as the initial batch of gun & turret drives. All later drives are made in Poland.

 

15 hours ago, Zadlo said:

And what is special with LANCE turret construction in comparison to other unmanned and optionally manned turrets?

 

First of all, the Puma uses the RCT-30 turret from Krauss-Maffei Wegmann and not the LANCE turret from Rheinmetall. The construction of the turret isn't extremely complicated, but it is made of aluminium - if you take a look at the Polish arms industry, you'll notice that they don't actually make use of any aluminium constructions in their armored fighting vehicles. The Puma was developed with the idea, that it would integrate several "next-gen" technologies (at the time of its design) to later reuse on a future tank program (the original NGP program, from which the Puma is derived, was meant to also include a MBT and a support variant based on the same hull). The basic structure of the unmanned turret is made from AA7039 T6 aluminium armor and this requires special tools to weld, as the material has to have a constant temperature even during the process of welding, otherwise it will deform and loose some of its protective abilities. Therefore special heating plates (which are rather large due to the size of the turret) are required at the welding stations. Given that Poland currently doesn't make armored vehicles out of such aluminium alloys and also doesn't have a big aircraft industry, specialized welding equipment and heating equipment has to be purchased and integrated into the factories.

 

Producing the hull of a next-gen MBT, if it makes use of the same manufacturing techniques as the Puma's hull, might be even more troublesome. Germany has pioneered the so-called "Dünnblechbiegetechnologie", where most of the hull is not welded together, but made of large pieces, that are bend. Rather than using armor steel, construction steel is used, which can hold a greater amount of weight for a given thickness, a fact that allows to reduce the thickness of the steel walls for a given carrying capacity (the protection is mostly provided by the composite armor). While steel bending is nothing new, it isn't particular common in the AFV industry, especially bending large parts (such as the floor plate of the Puma) with high precision (some tolerances > 0.1 mm).

 

The Leopard 2PL doesn't require the tools for making a modern vehicle like the Puma, which might be the closest thing (manufacturing-wise) to the MGCS. If the decision is made to upgrade the Polish facilities a year or two before a potential licence production, then it might not be a problem. But based on the current situation, it most likely wouldn't be possible to make the MGCS in Poland.

[Zadlo]

3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

The construction of the turret isn't extremely complicated, but it is made of aluminium - if you take a look at the Polish arms industry, you'll notice that they don't actually make use of any aluminium constructions in their armored fighting vehicles.

 

Not any important constructions in AFVs are made in Poland use aluminium. But ERAWA-1 version for Malaysian PT-91M uses casettes made of aluminium.

 

Quote

The basic structure of the unmanned turret is made from AA7039 T6 aluminium armor and this requires special tools to weld, as the material has to have a constant temperature even during the process of welding, otherwise it will deform and loose some of its protective abilities. Therefore special heating plates (which are rather large due to the size of the turret) are required at the welding stations. Given that Poland currently doesn't make armored vehicles out of such aluminium alloys and also doesn't have a big aircraft industry, specialized welding equipment and heating equipment has to be purchased and integrated into the factories.

 

In our case we're going more to use technology of non-iron metal alloys casting than to weld constructions made of aluminium or titanium.

For example, new composite armor from LUBAWA uses titanium casettes which are casted.

 

Quote

Producing the hull of a next-gen MBT, if it makes use of the same manufacturing techniques as the Puma's hull, might be even more troublesome. Germany has pioneered the so-called "Dünnblechbiegetechnologie", where most of the hull is not welded together, but made of large pieces, that are bend. Rather than using armor steel, construction steel is used, which can hold a greater amount of weight for a given thickness, a fact that allows to reduce the thickness of the steel walls for a given carrying capacity (the protection is mostly provided by the composite armor). While steel bending is nothing new, it isn't particular common in the AFV industry, especially bending large parts (such as the floor plate of the Puma) with high precision (some tolerances > 0.1 mm).

 

Dünnblechbiegetechnologie could be troublesome for Poles because it is unknown - but it can find fertile ground.

In case of current Borsuk IFV the concept of its armor in non-amphibious version is that only add-on HHS or composites panels provides the protection of IFV. According to requirements it is maximum level 4 STANAG 4569 (but I think level 5 is possible to make) but this requirement must be provided only by add-on panels. The base is made of RHA plates of thickness between 6 and 13 mm (in Borsuk it is 10 mm) but it's not counting to the protection level. It's possible the same concept could have been used in Anders / UMPG but in that case the base was thicker (up to 20 mm).

[Zadlo]

22 hours ago, Willy Brandt said:

Whats the dead Gepard? Not the Flakpanzer right?

 

Gepard was the 35-tonnes ubertank which was going to have the same protection level as Leopard 2A5 

But the requirements was made by a some man who suffers PTSD after that his T-55 was hit by training round during drills.

 

Quote

Also can you give a time when you can say the name?

 

I wish ASAP but OBRUM can't allow.